(2012-03-29 10:12)Xycl Wrote: Yes, an excluded directory is not scanned.
My Laptop scans several pictures per second (i7 2620m) but the pictures have a resolution of only 5 MPixels.
I know that the larger the pictures are the longer it will take to scan them.

EDIT: And I know that even videos are scanned. This takes a very long time.

My photo collection is around 15gb in some just under 7000 files (just cleaned some dups). Scanning the collection for the first time with newest version of the addon took more than 12 hours on a dedicated Core I3. It seems to me that it didn't take this long on previous versions. The only difference I could think of was that this time I excluded some folders from scanning - which as you say should actually decrease the time.

Just finished rescanning all pictures once again with (movie)folders excluded which took around 11 hours.

Found a bug - which might help explain why I can't see the pictures related to a person if the persons has a large number of images attached.

My image collection is just under 7000 images. I have persons tagged on around 3500, which leaves 3500 without any people tags. When selecting Browse by Persons, the count of images for each person seems correct, but the count for Pictures without persons is way off. In my case it claims that 6870 pictures have no persons tagged - even though just one of my persons is tagged in 1830 of the 7000 images (yes - I am a proud father with an over active camera trigger)

(2012-03-30 01:02)fungify Wrote: Just finished rescanning all pictures once again with (movie)folders excluded which took around 11 hours.

Found a bug - which might help explain why I can't see the pictures related to a person if the persons has a large number of images attached.

My image collection is just under 7000 images. I have persons tagged on around 3500, which leaves 3500 without any people tags. When selecting Browse by Persons, the count of images for each person seems correct, but the count for Pictures without persons is way off. In my case it claims that 6870 pictures have no persons tagged - even though just one of my persons is tagged in 1830 of the 7000 images (yes - I am a proud father with an over active camera trigger)

Would someone please test and confirm?

FFY

There's a typo in the code.
The number behind pictures without pesons is the number for pictures without categories.
But the displayed pictures are correct.
I'll correct the number in the next release.

Just finished reading this thread. Very excited by what this promises. Shame solexalex disappeared last March but thanks Xycl for breathing life into it.

'scuse the ignorance, but I'm not sure what repo to add. Should I add Xycl's abandoned repo or the passion repo? Does the passion repo exclude a required add-on? And how do I find Xycl's repo if the missing URL means that the repo doesn't show up in the list?

(2012-04-05 00:19)pedr0 Wrote: Just finished reading this thread. Very excited by what this promises. Shame solexalex disappeared last March but thanks Xycl for breathing life into it.

'scuse the ignorance, but I'm not sure what repo to add. Should I add Xycl's abandoned repo or the passion repo? Does the passion repo exclude a required add-on? And how do I find Xycl's repo if the missing URL means that the repo doesn't show up in the list?

Cheers!

You can just visit http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Uno...positories in your web browser and manually download the .zip file for the repo (it's towards the bottom of the list). I'm going to add a top-level URL to see if it makes it show up in the Repositories Installer Add-on.

Thanks for putting this addon together, it is filling a distinct hole in XBMC's capabilities.

I've noticed that the browse_folder function scanpath.py tends to bomb out at the stat functions if it encounters any files or folders without read permissions.
This is probably OS-specific and partially a user issue...
HOWEVER - In the name of bulletproofing, would it be possible to insert some exception trapping per-file or per-folder ?
I crudely hacked some try/except blocks around the code to enable it to scan my pics, but this might be handled more elegantly by the original authors.